Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Holzwarth

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 10, 1975No. 57926Published

1DissentHolman, Judge

I respectfully dissent for the reason that the alleged error for which the principal opinion reverses the judgment was not preserved for appellate review. If the judicial process is to operate in an orderly manner counsel must be required to make a proper objection in order to give the trial court an opportunity to rule on matters considered objectionable. In this case there was no objection to the reading of the first statute and the objection made to the reading of the excusable homicide statute was entirely different from the objection urged on this appeal. In that situation neither…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Minter v. Bradstreet Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903
  2. Merrick v. Bridgeways, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1951
  3. State v. EllifritsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1970
  4. King v. FurryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1958
  5. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API